UNION OF INDIA Vs. FIGHT CADET ASHISH RAJ
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on January 18,2006

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
FLIGHT CADET ASHISH RAI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RABI RANJAN MALICK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2006-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA JIWAJIRAO EDUCATION SOCIETY AND SHRI PRATAP BHANU SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
HE MAN DUCTILE IRONS LTD VS. CESC LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2009-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
MANILAL JALAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
WOODBURN PARK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY PVT LTD VS. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
R R TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
BARI BRAHMANA INDUSTRIES ASSO VS. POWER DEVELOPMENT DEPTT [LAWS(J&K)-2008-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
G L CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-348] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURNA S. JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL VS. RAMA SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
RASHIDULLAH KHAN AND ORS. VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-181] [REFERRED TO]
D.C.M SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD. UNIT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, DAURALA, DISTRICT MEERUT AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-380] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK S/O SHANKARRAO BAPAT VS. ANAND S/O VYANKATESH SONWALKAR; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHANDRAPUR; POLICE INSPECTOR, TRAFFIC CONTROL BRANCH, CHANDRAPUR; MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANDRAPUR; STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-186] [REFERRED]
DINESH CHANDRA JAIN SON OF LATE SHEEL CHANDRA JAIN VS. SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-390] [REFERRED]
NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
ASIM KUMAR HAJRAH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
I. SINO PHOM VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
RABI RANJAN MALICK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2006-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH PHUMBRA & ORS VS. WOODBURN PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY, BAIRGACHI HIGH SCHOOL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR PRADHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
L. KARTHIK VS. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
D. K. MISHRA VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-24] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Union of India and its functionaries calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the orders dated 16.6.2000 and 27.6.2000, and further directing appellants to allow the respondent to complete training from the stage he had left and to act in terms of the instructions of the Headquarters, Indian Air Force as regards re-testing.
(2.)Factual background in a nutshell as highlighted by the appellants is as follows:- The respondent was selected as a Flight Cadet to undergo training to become a pilot in the Indian Air Force (in short Air Force). The concerned course for being commissioned as pilot officer was course No. 157 which covered a period of 72 weeks. It commenced on 5-2-1995. During training the respondent complained of knee injury which was sustained prior to training on 28-12-1994 due to a road accident. Since he remained absent during the course, it was felt that he could not be continued in the pilot course, flying training was terminated and he was given option of joining Ab-initio Navigators course which the respondent accepted and joined in January 1998. The course was 86 Ab-initio Navigators course. In November, 1998, he was found to be lagging behind in the studies and the training was terminated. Further option was given to join Ground Duty Officers course which the respondent opted to join and, in fact, in July 1999 joined as a trainee in the Administrative branch which was to be held at Air Force Academy in Ground Duty Officers Course No. 106. During such training the authorities came to know various acts of misconduct on the part of the respondent. A Court of Inquiry was conducted where the respondent admitted the aberrations. A warning was given in November 1999. As he failed in three academic subjects, a Training Review Board was formed and its opinion was forwarded to the Headquarter for processing with the Central Government. He was suspended from training on 1.2.2000 which in Air Force terminology is called "Struck Off Ration Strength". He was "routed home" pending final approval. Respondent filed a writ petition on 1-2-2000 before the Allahabad High Court challenging suspension of training where interim order was passed allowing the respondent to continue training. The respondent was directed to resume duty on 11.3.2000 whereas he actually reported for duty on 13-3-2000. On 11-3-2000 he was again involved in drunken brawl outside the Academy and was arrested and sent to police custody. On 22-3-2000 the case was compounded by a Magistrate. On 2.4.2000 the Duty Officer of the Air Force Academy visited the trainees mess and found the respondent smelling of liquor. On 12/13-5-2000 the respondent in a drunken condition physically assaulted co-trainees, used abusive language and terrorized a large number of trainees by his violent behaviour. On 12-6-2000 he was involved in another criminal case in having misused credit card of the other Cadets. First information report was lodged, cognizance was taken and warrants were issued. Since he failed in final examination he was assessed to be unsuitable for further training by the Review Board on 29-5-2000 and on 14-6-2000 his training was terminated because of his failure in academics and for maintaining low standard of discipline. The report was forwarded to the Air Force Headquarters, he was "routed home" and order of termination of Cadetship was passed.
(3.)Another writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging termination of training. Both the writ petitions were heard together and by order dated 25-5-2001 the learned Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the orders dated 16-6-2000 and 27-6-2000. Writ appeals filed by the present appellants were dismissed with the directions as afore-noted. Learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent be commissioned. By order dated 16-1-2003 the judgment was stayed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.